scott2000
Well-known member
Say Say Say what you want.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2Vtpypl--8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2Vtpypl--8
Transformers...
- Thread starter pucho812
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
moamps
Well-known member
80hinhiding said:
Adam, I think you're a little overreacting.
I really like transformers and tube gear, but I think the title of the article where someone suggests that if your mix has no magic, you will get it using a transformer is wrong. The overall content is also far below the level of this forum, as transformers are misused, and their operation is incorrectly explained.
Although I have had "quarrels" with the moderators on this forum at times, I think we should be grateful to have such smart people hanging out here. And I didn’t see that they didn’t want to help people around that old technology (except JR who keeps repeating that he’s not a tube guy, and annoying already with that
).In the end, it’s always easy to add non-linearity to a linear system if you want to. Reversal is generally not possible.
/quote] One is entitled to think that the magic of Frank Sinatra is in the U47[/quote]
The first studio I worked at had two u47s. One had the nuvistor mod and the other had a VF14. That VF 14 was the most marvelous sounding one. The tube makes a difference no matter what anybody says. You don’t have to be frank Sinatra to appreciate that mic. Now try to find and buy a real VF14 much less a U47. I have a 249 with an AC701. It’s a great mic and people I record want that mic on their voice. I could use a 414 and get good results but the singers I record hear something they like even if I can’t tell. Go figure. A focusrite with a recap job and a lundahl input transformer is a thing of beauty to my ears for a modern mic pre. I’m sure there are modern mics that do the same but that U47 with the VF14 is mind blowing. Sorry for hijacking.
The first studio I worked at had two u47s. One had the nuvistor mod and the other had a VF14. That VF 14 was the most marvelous sounding one. The tube makes a difference no matter what anybody says. You don’t have to be frank Sinatra to appreciate that mic. Now try to find and buy a real VF14 much less a U47. I have a 249 with an AC701. It’s a great mic and people I record want that mic on their voice. I could use a 414 and get good results but the singers I record hear something they like even if I can’t tell. Go figure. A focusrite with a recap job and a lundahl input transformer is a thing of beauty to my ears for a modern mic pre. I’m sure there are modern mics that do the same but that U47 with the VF14 is mind blowing. Sorry for hijacking.
With all due respect, it's one the emptiest sentence I ever heard. Does a console that's worth your efforts purrs after the take? Or pat you on the bum?80hinhiding said:
What I meant is: do the records he did with an RCA44 lack anything? There is nothing more different to a U47 than a RCA ribbon. The records he made with a Sony 800G, were they inferior?fazer said:
boji
Well-known member
Thanks 80. My favorite turn of that phrase is from McCarthy, packing a big item in such a tiny carton:
“There is no such joy in the tavern as upon the road thereto.”
scott2000
Well-known member
I think there are many who appreciate the straight wire approach ? Surely accuracy and transparency are nice sometimes and there can be arguments made that not all gear is equal there as well....
I just remembered this....
https://tapeop.com/interviews/90/jim-williams/
The most inadmissible argument is to make the dead speak.80hinhiding said:
You're getting silly now.
Remember I wrote: "the equipment used for these legendary recordings is that it was well designed, well manufactured and well maintained." What's it got in common with a cheap mixer?
OK; then whenever did I say that I want a mediocre set-up? And I still maintain that transformers and tubes are not guaranteed to bring what's needed for best transcription of an acoustic event. Ever since the beginning of electric recording, engineers have tried to improve the performance of gear, because they knew it was imperfect.
You seem to implicate that anything built after the 70's is inferior.
That's proof that talent is more important than tools.
I can only agree with that. As much as I can, I try to match the equipment to what I have to record. If I was not the case, I would do complete records with a Sweetwater recording bundle.
Wrong example, electronic drums were in infancy when Bonham played. And if I had to record him today, I would use the drums he chose to play. As I said earlier, you don't know me. I'm more organic than you think. And I'm not trying to convince anybody; I just want to debunk myths.
You seem to be disappointed by my contentment... Am I depriving you of something? You must, for demonstrating so much contempt for me.
Seems like a discussion about a few different things being lumped in together. For example, the notion of using the recording equipment itself for an effect ("pleasing" signal degradation) as opposed to optimising signal integrity. There is room for both in my world. I probably should leave well alone the notion of the "effect" of analogue summing.
I love valves and transformers. My first valve guitar amp was a beaten up 1964 AC30 purchased back in the early 90s. I still have it. That amp changed my life. Admittedly, at one point, I also probably drank some transformer kool-aid, I wanted to transformerise everything. However, I was recently thinking that some well-liked albums from the late 60s and 70s were probably mixed on solid state consoles that did not use input transformers during mix mode, and did not have any output transformers.
I love valves and transformers. My first valve guitar amp was a beaten up 1964 AC30 purchased back in the early 90s. I still have it. That amp changed my life. Admittedly, at one point, I also probably drank some transformer kool-aid, I wanted to transformerise everything. However, I was recently thinking that some well-liked albums from the late 60s and 70s were probably mixed on solid state consoles that did not use input transformers during mix mode, and did not have any output transformers.
Scodiddly
Well-known member
fazer said:
Different sound fingerprints for different eras. A couple generations from now people will have their memories of this decade triggered by the sound of a shitty cell phone mic sliced and diced by online streaming. If the music is good the recording medium is just along for the ride.
I’ve had my expectations of sound quality thwarted many times. One notable example happened when setting up my old Neumann SP75 cutting console. That generation of console used the OA10 op amp.
The console had three stereo outputs. There were two types of output cards. One with an output transformer and the other type without. My plan was to use a transformerless card for the main out and use the transformer version for a utility out.
I tried it that way first and was not happy with the sound as compared to monitoring from the source. For kicks I tried the card with the output transformer and bingo it sounded much more like the source . I was surprised. My expectation was the opposite so it can’t be expectation bias. I can’t explain it but I know what I hear.
An older Neumann console I have has 11 pieces of iron in the signal path. It sounds remarkably clean. I’m mostly a straight wire with gain kinda guy but clean enough is clean enough.
The console had three stereo outputs. There were two types of output cards. One with an output transformer and the other type without. My plan was to use a transformerless card for the main out and use the transformer version for a utility out.
I tried it that way first and was not happy with the sound as compared to monitoring from the source. For kicks I tried the card with the output transformer and bingo it sounded much more like the source . I was surprised. My expectation was the opposite so it can’t be expectation bias. I can’t explain it but I know what I hear.
An older Neumann console I have has 11 pieces of iron in the signal path. It sounds remarkably clean. I’m mostly a straight wire with gain kinda guy but clean enough is clean enough.
pucho812
Well-known member
guys guys, I think we can all agree to disagree on a lot of points of what should and should not be in circuit. I think we also can agree that this article is rudimentary and full of incorrect statements and claims. The use of the word magical reeks of audiopholery alone. At minimum this article needs correction but I doubt the author would do it. I could tell some funny stories and such but nah. At best most who have rudimentary or less understanding of transformers will laud it as being brilliant. As I often tell people there is a lot of science in those cans, many things to know. I had a good one the other day from a former jensen design engineer.
He suggested that instead of using a 1:1 transformer on the line input of a module, to try a 4:1 step down. He went on the explain the 12dB drop in level can easily be made up with the following preamp circuitry and gives you room to maneuver as they say. I may consider playing around with the idea.
As for me posting this, it sparked a discussion about some of the key points in the article which was good.
Carry on with your argument
He suggested that instead of using a 1:1 transformer on the line input of a module, to try a 4:1 step down. He went on the explain the 12dB drop in level can easily be made up with the following preamp circuitry and gives you room to maneuver as they say. I may consider playing around with the idea.
As for me posting this, it sparked a discussion about some of the key points in the article which was good.
Carry on with your argument
user 37518
Well-known member
Correct me if im wrong but the reason why big name brands such as Jensen transformers are so expensive is because they exhibit less of the artifacts commonly associated with transformers, otherwise if you feel like hearing a transformer get some Triad TY-250P for less than $10.
I agree with Abbey and JR, well designed/built/serviced gear is what counts. As far as I know, no electronic designer of the past designed audio equipment with the idea of deliberately adding distortion, or color, in fact they tend to use the cleanest, newest components and best circuit design techniques available to them at that moment, you can look at or read interviews of Rupert Neve and he strived towards perfection, less crosstalk, cleaner sound, etc. not "more mojo". Many of the sound engineers from the 70s were relieved when their consoles no longer had to use those nasty transformers that messed with their sound.
Today is different, many things are designed with the idea of imparting a "sound" rather than being transparent, but to me that is more of a fad than true objectivity. It is true that some well stablished engineers prefer old gear than newer gear, but the majority of new engineers dont know what they are talking about, in fact most of them havent heard the real thing, most is just marketing and hype.
I was also in the transparent-is-no-good movement, but that was years ago before I knew any better, today I want to design and build and use the best engineered equipment, which most of the time happens to be transformless-solid state. If I need more fuzz, then I'll just add fuzz with a fuzz unit, but I dont expect my preamps to do it.
I also agree with JR when he says that if you can hear it, you can measure it, so to me, lower THD figures means better.
I agree with Abbey and JR, well designed/built/serviced gear is what counts. As far as I know, no electronic designer of the past designed audio equipment with the idea of deliberately adding distortion, or color, in fact they tend to use the cleanest, newest components and best circuit design techniques available to them at that moment, you can look at or read interviews of Rupert Neve and he strived towards perfection, less crosstalk, cleaner sound, etc. not "more mojo". Many of the sound engineers from the 70s were relieved when their consoles no longer had to use those nasty transformers that messed with their sound.
Today is different, many things are designed with the idea of imparting a "sound" rather than being transparent, but to me that is more of a fad than true objectivity. It is true that some well stablished engineers prefer old gear than newer gear, but the majority of new engineers dont know what they are talking about, in fact most of them havent heard the real thing, most is just marketing and hype.
I was also in the transparent-is-no-good movement, but that was years ago before I knew any better, today I want to design and build and use the best engineered equipment, which most of the time happens to be transformless-solid state. If I need more fuzz, then I'll just add fuzz with a fuzz unit, but I dont expect my preamps to do it.
I also agree with JR when he says that if you can hear it, you can measure it, so to me, lower THD figures means better.
user 37518 said:
Hmm. I have a lot of preamps that make fuzz types I can't get anywhere else. Kinda like pushed tape, but differing flavors. Putting a variable line pad in front of them can make life much easier when mixing uninspiring sounding tracks from elsewhere. Some of them act like limiters, with very long knees before the flatline, and I can't make any com/lim I have do the same thing. They don't sound obviously flatlined when the waveform looks that way.
But that's not the transformers.
2 (not wanted) ¢....
I was just marveling at a pair of late 1930's RCA tube line amps I restored and measured last week. Input, interstage, and output transformers, no feedback loops (2 cathode bypass caps of 25mfd each), flat down to 16Hz. A little bit of coupling cap/transformer bottom bump, which actually decreased with an increase in coupling capacitance.
user 37518
Well-known member
fazer said:
Im sorry, I dont know what you mean by "balls" nor can I measure it.
Do you measure gear when you record or do you use your ears to record. You need access to classic gear to be able to hear it and even then the modules can have sound differences. So measure that or use it to record with your ears if it’s working properly. Lots of clones don’t sound like vintage gear it emulates especially microphones. I think I said earlier that your ears tell you if you like a transformerless modern preamp on an instrument or a vintage tube pre or transformer SS. And that depends on the other sounds in the recording. Ultimately you use your ears not a piece of test gear . A clone does not necessarily sound like the real thing but it might be what’s good enough for a the budget of the recording your working on. Most of my vintage gear was purchased years ago when it was affordable. The main problem with it is keeping it maintained. I do quick measurements to make sure it’s in the ball(s) park ;D and then listen with my ears to see if it’s sound correct or needs further repair. I use my ears when I’m recording I don’t measure it other than record level. Most of the time my ears tell me if I need to change mics, compressors ect. or work on the part /arrangement. I don’t measure it. But if that works for you measure away. Now on the other hand if your doing post production for broadcast then I measure the level and deliver to spec for the broadcast format.
ruffrecords
Well-known member
fazer said:
Let me know when you want a house built. I won't measure it I will just use my hands. Can't guarantee it will be straight or square or weatherproof (you will have to measure to find out) but it will look vintage.
Cheers
Ian
